|
2023-TIOL-1373-HC-AHM-GST
ADF Foods Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner challenges the inaction on the part of the respondents not to sanction the refund claims of integrated goods and service tax paid on exported goods i.e. "Zero Rated Supplies" through Mundra Customs Port - It was their case that due to oversight, the Custom House Agent had inadvertently selected "A" suffixed with the serial number in the drawback notification which provides for higher drawback rates concerning cases where CENVAT facility has not been availed, instead of "B" which provides for lower drawback for cases that are otherwise - It was their case that the excess drawback on account of availing of CENVAT credit facility had been repaid with interest and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of IGST in respect of the shipping bills. Held : Issue raised in this petition is identical to the one decided by this Court and, therefore, the petition on this count alone in light of the decision in the case of Amit Cotton ( = 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST ) deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed - The respondents are directed to sanction the refund of IGST paid in context of shipping bills referred to in para 24(b) of the petition with simple interest @ of 6% from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund - Petition allowed: High Court [para 7, 9, 10]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-967-CESTAT-MAD
Inox Air Products Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - The appeal does not give an up-to-date picture of facts - Even during the hearing, the issue has been argued only on merits without updating on factual position in relation to impugned order - Appellant had filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit ordered by Commissioner (A) - This Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Order dated 24.11.2014 directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1,30,000/- only - Upon deposit of said amount, pre-deposit of balance amount of tax along with interest and penalty was to be waived and stay of recovery thereof to be operative till disposal of appeal - A further miscellaneous application was filed by appellant against said order - The same was disposed of vide order in 2015-TIOL-2476-CESTAT-MAD by Tribunal reiterating its earlier order and allowing the appellant a further period of four weeks as a last chance to comply with pre-deposit - The appellant vide their letter has reported compliance on making pre-deposit - Appeal has not been disposed of on merits by lower appellate authority since the pre-deposit had not been made by appellant - Now that the defect has been cured, matter is remanded back to lower appellate authority to decide the issue on merits - Commissioner (A) shall follow the principles of natural justice and afford a reasonable and time bound opportunity to appellant to state their case both orally and in writing if they so wish, before issuing a speaking order in matter - Appellant should also co-operate with the appellate authority in completing process expeditiously and in any case within ninety days - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal is restored before Commissioner (A) for a decision on merits: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-966-CESTAT-AHM
Modern Packaging Company Vs CCE & ST
CX - The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of packaging material falling under Chapter Headings 39 and 48 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - It procured printing cylinder falling under Tariff Item 8442 50 10 ibid, required for the production of packing material from Accuprint Systems, Mumbai - The supplier-manufacturer have cleared the said cylinder on payment of duty - The Department's contention is that the printing cylinders are falling under sub-heading 8442 50 ibid and exempted under Notification No. 49/2006-C.E., dated 31-12-2006 - Accordingly, they are chargeable to 2% duty without cenvat or 5% with cenvat w.e.f. 01-03-2011 as per Notification No. 2/2011-C.E., dated 01-03-2011 - Hence the duty paid by the supplier which was not supposed to be paid under the Notification, the appellant is not entitled for cenvat credit of such duty. Held - The sole ground for denial of Cenvat credit to the Appellant was that the supplier of printing cylinder was not supposed to pay the duty as the same were exempted under Notification No. 49/2006-C.E., dated 31-12-2006, therefore, the duty was wrongly paid by the supplier and consequently the appellant is not eligible for cenvat credit of such duty wrongly paid - The Department itself was of the view that the supplier was supposed to pay the duty and on a query made by the supplier to their jurisdictional officers they have clarified vide letter dated 08.08.2003, the said letter wherein the matter was considered by the Chief Commissioner Central Excise-Mumbai Zone-II communicated by the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise-Taloja Division to the supplier - From the clarification given to the supplier of the printing cylinder, there is no ambiguity that the supplier correctly paid duty without availing exemption Notification No 49/2006-C.E., dated 30-12-2006 - The entire basis for denial of credit was contrary to the clarification given in the aforementioned letter - It is for the supplier's jurisdictional officers to assess as to whether or not tax was paid correctly and the same was clarified by the supplier's jurisdictional officer - The jurisdictional officer of the appellant has no jurisdiction to question the assessment or correctness of the payment of duty - Hence, the Appellant correctly availed the cenvat credit on the Rotogravure Printing Cylinder supplied by M/s Accuprints System - Hence the demand is not sustainable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-965-CESTAT-AHM
Arcelormittal Nipon Steel India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The Appellant, formerly known as M/s Essar Steel India Ltd, imported certain scrap and paid tax thereon - Later on, it was found that there was an excess of 1300 MTS as against declared quantity of 29307.318 metric tons - The said goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, and redemption fine of Rs. 16.5 Lakhs, penalty of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs was imposed by original adjudicating authority under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act - The matter was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 16.5 to Rs. 5 Lakhs, and penalty from Rs. 3.5 Lakh to Rs. 1 Lakhs. Held - The original case was booked against (ESIL) Essar Steel India Ltd - During the pendency of this case (ESIL) Essar Steel India Ltd underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) - In a similar situation in Appellant's own case, Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/11549/2023 had observed that the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT and according to which, any Government dues as on the date of the NCLT order, stand extinguished - Hence the appeal was dismissed as being infructuous - Following such order, the present appeal is disposed off as infructuous as well: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
